Here is where we dig out the FutureMark tests.
For overall system performance we use PCMark Vantage. This is run in both x86 and x64 mode to give the best indication of performance.
PCMark Vantage seems to show us that the Fatal1ty would be good for general purpose computing. The numbers here are at the top of the pack for stock testing while our overclocking gets the Fatal1ty second place.
For synthetic gaming tests we used the industry standard and overlockers bragging tool 3DMark 11. This is a test that strives to mimic the impact modern games have on a system. Futuremark went a long way to change from the early days of graphics driven tests to a broader approach including physics, AI and more advanced graphics simulations. 3DMark V11 uses the DX11 API in addition to having support for CPU based Physics. Gone are the days of the PhysX inclusion giving you inflated scores.
This slightly cluttered table shows us that the Fatal1ty (a motherboard named after and endorsed by a Pro Gamer) can hold its own under stock conditions, but quickly falls behind when you push it. The difference here is not extreme, but it is something we will keep an eye on during our real-world gaming tests.
Cinebench R11. x64
Cinebench is a synthetic rendering tool developed by Maxon. Maxon is the same company that developed Cinema4D, another industry leading 3D Animation application. Cinebench R11.5 tests your systems ability to render across a single and multiple CPU cores. It also tests your systems ability to process OpenGL information.
As is now typical on the P67 based systems we are testing, the Cinebench R11.5 scores are really too close to call a "winner". All of these boards should perform pretty close to each other when rendering single frames using this application.